The 1993 photo of Elena Kagan playing softball, while an assistant law professor at the University of Chicago, left the US media in a lather about whether its use constituted a coded allusion to homosexual orientation. Photograph: AP

President Obama's new chief of staff is a "cat-loving bachelor". Homeland security chief Janet Napolitano sports a buzz-cut hairstyle. Both she and new supreme court justice Elena Kagan are referred to as "childless and unmarried" – and auspiciously not "single" – the distinction being the subject of an op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. These stories have fuelled suspicions of homosexual orientation about these American public officials.

Are these descriptions just harmess calls for a snicker and a wink – par for the course for anyone in public life? None of the officials referred to has said that they are gay or lesbian. A debate now rages on the appropriateness of such innuendo; and the media struggles to find a narrative that is ethical.

For starters, most of the descriptions reinforce stereotyping of gay and lesbian people that is simply unhelpful. Of all the identities that serve as a distinguishing feature – race, religion, gender etc – sexual orientation is the most difficult to presume. Though the images that have come to be associated with gay identity often reflect a type of metropolitan gay person, they are by no means exhaustive. Sometimes, the tick boxes of the mythical "gaydar" are simply wrong.

Given the history of homophobia, it is obvious why some gay public officials have felt that it is not prudent to be open about their sexuality. At the height of the Aids crisis in the 1980s and 90s, a controversial practice developed among gay rights and Aids activists. Frustrated by what they considered to be lack of government attention to the issues of HIV/Aids, they set about "outing" closeted public officials. It was more than just shaming by naming; the proponents of these tactics argued that a closeted gay politician who pursued policies that were inimical to gay interests (particularly in relation to Aids) forfeited the right to privacy and made their own sexual orientation a legitimate political issue.

There are many critiques of "outing" as a political strategy. One is that it essentially relies on the idea that being gay is a bad thing – a homophobic premise – in order to tear a person down. So, even though there is a particular satisfaction about the unmasking of a hypocrite such as homophobic televangelist Ted Haggard, or the close questioning of others such as Bishop Eddie Long who are hostile to gay interests, "outing" serves to satisfy a grudge rather than fundamentally challenge the ideas that underpin homophobia.

Some believe that if there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, then there is an obligation to make that clear; or that even speculation or assumed knowledge in this regard is not a big deal. That thinking perhaps informed blogger Andrew Sullivan's insistence that Elena Kagan should have been grilled about her sexual orientation as a part of her supreme court confirmation process. The argument is that if there are blithe references to a person's heterosexuality – a wife, husband etc – there should be equally normalising references to a person's gay life. To do otherwise keeps things in the dark and provides the basis for whispers.

Sullivan could be forgiven for believing there is greater progress in gay acceptance than actually exists. His views assume a world where people are not still imprisoned for being gay, and where gay marriages and civil unions are the routine order of the day. If recent progress on these fronts has been a triumph for privacy, the idea of privacy also ensures a person's right to conduct their life in a manner that they see fit. This includes imparting knowledge about personal and family life on a timetable of one's own choosing. There is no compelling public interest in absolute self-disclosure, against a person's will.

It may not break any law to be snide or to speculate about someone's sexual orientation. But gay-baiting through coded language in the mainstream media is, at best, tabloid-style intrusive and sensationalist, and at worst, puerile – neither of which is a high-minded pursuit worthy of a serious media culture.